The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Overall: A good, albeit highly technical article. Length and newness are fine. I can't see all the sources, but the article reflects those that I can. I think that ALT1 is the more interesting hook and happy to approve on that basis. Bermicourt (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't see "dusty disk" anywhere in the article or sources. Mention is made of a "dust lane". Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: In the article is mentioned as dust disk, and in the arxiv pdf of entry assosiated with the first source is mentioned as dusty disk. [3]C messier (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@C messier: really, the way you write it in the article should match the source. Meanwhile, the caption that mentions "dust disk" doesn't have an inline cite, so ALT1 is ineligible for DYK at this time. I would promote ALT0 instead, but both the facts in that hook also lack inline cites (immediately after the sentence in which they appear). Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@C messier:. The way things work around here, if you can arrange for the hook and the article text to be identical, it'll pass. And, although I'm confident your sources would back either hook, unfortunately we can't see the actual articles at the links you've provided. If I were you, I'd just quote a visible online source verbatim in both hook and text. It should then sail through unless someone thinks the hook is boring of course... But that's highly subjective, so you just have to have a go. Bermicourt (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: verbatim copying is going to violate WP:COPYVIO unless it is placed in quotes. That is not what I'm asking for here. The article says "dust disk" and the source, according to the page creator, says "dusty disk". I'm only talking about a term, not whole descriptions. Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Verbatim copying doesn't automatically violate copyright law, nor does paraphrasing automatically escape copyright violation. That said, I agree it's sensible to put in quotes the verbatim part of a hook as well as citing it. In view of where we are, I'd also recommend the creator now quotes the exact text that he's derived the hook from, so we can be satisfied it supports the hook sufficiently. Bermicourt (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Bermicourt:, I added the inline cites immediately after the sentence in which they appear. Conserning the dusty disk at the pdf you can see " Alatalo et al. (2013) showed a prominent dusty disk in the g − r image", while at Alatalo et al mentions at figure A12 "NGC 3665 is a group regular rotator (MK = −24.92) with normal stellar morphology. It contains a dust disc." C messier (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I find the first to be the more interesting and unique. The fact that a lenticular galaxy has a dusty disk is just being redundant, and many galaxies are active. Praemonitus (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@C messier: thank you for that cite. I agree with Praemonitus that ALT0 is a more interesting hook, but now I'm wondering if "molecular gas" (in the article) is the same as "molecular cloud" in the hook? Yoninah (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I think you're right, they're not necessarily the same thing. The sourced papers are talking specifically about the ISM, which includes but is not the same as the star-forming molecular cloud regions. The hook should probably say "molecular gas regions". Praemonitus (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
ALT0a: ... that despite having large molecular gas reservoirs, NGC 3665 has a less than expected star formation rate?
Note to Yoninah and Praemonitus: I've struck the original hook and proposed ALT0a, with "cloud" replaced by "gas", but retaining "reservoirs", which is in a cited sentence (haven't checked the source myself, though)—"regions" is not used in the article so using it in the hook is problematic, especially since the two words are not at all synonymous. Is this ready for approval now? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Approved ALT0a with the addition of "a" which I think is more grammatical. AGF on previous review. I think ALT0a is the better hook, but I just have to comment on the criticisms of ALT1. Complaining that the source said "dusty disk" rather than "dust disk" is just pedantry. If we couldn't ever reword a source we would never be able to get away from close paraphrasing. SpinningSpark 19:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
A good, albeit highly technical article. Length and newness are fine. I can't see all the sources, but the article reflects those that I can. I think that ALT1 is the more interesting hook and happy to approve on that basis. Bermicourt (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Approved ALT0a with the addition of "a" which I think is more grammatical. AGF on previous review. I think ALT0a is the better hook, but I just have to comment on the criticisms of ALT1. Complaining that the source said "dusty disk" rather than "dust disk" is just pedantry. If we couldn't ever reword a source we would never be able to get away from close paraphrasing. SpinningSpark 19:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)